Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[LastTear]

I've just remembered that we haven't heard from Sharon Osbourne yet.

 

[ivy]

Let me ask you this (I was thinking about this on twitter last night)

What if jury thinks AEG has negligently hired Murray but awards minimal to none monetary damages (due to thinking low/no responsibility in Michael's death and/ or not much loss of income).

Who "wins" then, in your opinion?

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I explained this before and you are missing one thing. This lawsuit alleges that AEG hired Murray (as an independent contractor) and therefore are liable. AEG can't blame Murray. Because if AEG blames Murray and the jurors side with the Jacksons and think there was an employee / independent contactor relationship between Murray and AEG, they would find AEG liable.

No they wouldn't. Jurors have to accept that not only did aeg hire murray but also that they negligently did so, as well as supervise him and do so negligently. That is the big leap that jurors have to do. Of course aeg can have a defence of blaming murray as well as mj, how were they responsible for and could foresee his 17 egregious breaches of the duty of care etc etc as well as the administration of prop in the bedroom. I thought that would be their defence and don't tell me that noone else on here didn't think the same way.

Katherine's lawyers state that
- Murray has to be listed
- AEG's liability is coextensive with Murray's liability (any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG)
- putting AEG and Murray on one line reduces confusion as KJ's lawyers claim AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same.

by just looking to this information and knowing that Jackson lawyers is making an argument that "AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same" and "any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG" , tells you why AEG would not be putting any responsibility on Murray.

I guess people approach to lawsuits as facts or truths or fairness etc, but in reality lawsuits is what you can prove and what you need to debunk. Yes Murray is responsible - at least a significant factor - according to the criminal trial but your common sense should tell you that AEG will not put any responsibility to him if they are facing "any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG" claims from Jacksons.

You seem to be arguing that aeg are facing 'any fault attributable to murray is attributable to aeg' as a done deal. The jacksons have to show that aeg negligently hired/trained and supervised murray first. As i have explained a few times before, aeg's liability being coextensive with murray's liability on the jackson form is because it is the allocation of blame line right at the end of the verdict form. Jurors have already agreed that aeg negligently hired/trained/supervised murray which is why the jackson lawyers put the names together. The jackson form has a line for mj doesn't it? So if jurors want to put some allocation on mj, they can. The aeg verdict form on the other hand has no murray, nowhere. Aeg have got a huge problem if they can't refer to murray or his negligence - i didn't rate any of murray's defence arguments. What they going to do, blame klien and the half life of demoral.

 

[bouee]

I explained this before and you are missing one thing. You need to look to the lawsuits, claims so on.

This lawsuit alleges that AEG hired Murray (as an independent contractor) and therefore are liable. AEG can't blame Murray. Because if AEG blames Murray and the jurors side with the Jacksons and think there was an employee / independent contactor relationship between Murray and AEG, they would find AEG liable. So IMO AEG cannot risk that and therefore they would go with the blame MJ route. Because if the jury sides with AEG and thinks this was all Michael's personal choice and responsibility, they cannot find AEG liable for what Murray did or did not do.


again from Jackson opposition document to AEG's verdict forms

Katherine's lawyers state that
- Murray has to be listed
- AEG's liability is coextensive with Murray's liability (any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG)
- putting AEG and Murray on one line reduces confusion as KJ's lawyers claim AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same.

by just looking to this information and knowing that Jackson lawyers is making an argument that "AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same" and "any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG" , tells you why AEG would not be putting any responsibility on Murray. Because simply put, in this instance blaming Murray would equal to blaming themselves. and that's the answer to your question.

I guess people approach to lawsuits as facts or truths or fairness etc, but in reality lawsuits is what you can prove and what you need to debunk. Yes Murray is responsible - at least a significant factor - in Michael's death according to the criminal trial but your common sense should tell you that AEG will not put any responsibility to him if they are facing "any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG" claims from Jacksons.

edited to add:

The best defense position for AEG lies in denying everything. It starts with saying "Murray wasn't hired because the contract wasn't signed". However the jury might think oral contract was sufficient, so AEG also needs to argue "Michael hired Murray, we just advanced him the money". However the jury might disagree and think it was AEg who hired Murray. So then AEG needs to argue that the hiring wasn't negligent, no credit checks were required and even if they did do them it wouldn't show Murray was incompetent or a risk factor. They will need to argue they did not know or couldn't know about Michael's dependency issues, Murray's drug regimen and they could not pinpoint the problem. However guess what, jury might think just like bouee does and believe there was enough to prove that they should have known.

Then jury sits down to determine who is responsible and how much. If it comes to this stage it means jury thinks an employee/ employer relationship is present and AEG is going to be liable for the actions of Murray as they negligently hired him and exposed Michael to risk. Now the criminal trial said Murray does not need to be the only reason, Michael could have responsibility too, it was only required that Murray was a significant contributing factor. Criminal trial never determined who was responsible and how much. In this instance the jury need to decide who has how much responsibility. As you can see, in this stage AEG could be found liable for their independent contactor Murray so their best defense is to put the most or all of responsibility to someone else - in this instance that someone is unfortunately Michael.

and finally comes the money. showing as small as possible an income potential and establishing they have a small responsibility in the above stage, ensures that even in the worst case scenario AEG would not be ordered to pay big amounts of money.

and that's how AEG's defense mentality works.

Where does the judge's ruling below stand in the explanation you gave ?

Claim 5 Respondeat Superior

Judge states that AEG's evidence established that Murray was an independent contractor and not an employee and AEG had no control over "means and manner" of Murray's work. Judge cites case law that doctors are considered independent contractors.

Katherine claims that AEG hired Murray in part to ensure that Michael attended rehearsals. Judge says even this claim might be true, there's no evidence that AEG had any control over how Murray did that.

Judge also mentions secondary factors that AEG Live had nothing to do with medical care, medical work performed by a specialist without supervision, medicines were provided by Murray and the contract and the parties clearly understood that the agreement was for an independent contractor.

Therefore judge states there's no triable issue whether Murray was an employee and determines that Murray was an independent contractor.

As Katherine fails to show any evidence that AEG had any control over how (manner or means) Murray did his job, judge dismisses the respondeat superior claim.

----
Sometimes i feel that too much legal talk kills it versus common sense. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking from a jury's perspective, who are not legal preofessionals.

To me, denying / minimising obvious health issues and Murray's role is a mistake on AEG's part.

It's clear and easy to understand that they are not doctors and could not understand what Murray was doing, had no means to tell him HOW to take care of Michael. It's not as if we were talking about a light engineer starting to do weird and dangerous things. AEG are in the show business and could more easily understand what a crazy light engineer is doing.

Their defense will/would be more believeable if they blame Murray - along with Michael or not, IMO.

If they don't, and they do seem to over minimising Murray's role, I think it's because they are stuck in that line of defense, they probably think don't have a choice, given the facts that came out.

 

[ivy]

Jurors have to accept that not only did aeg hire murray but also that they negligently did so, as well as supervise him and do so negligently.

yes I added this but what if the jury thinks this? you expect AEG to put all of their eggs in one basket and only focus on one part of the claims while risking the others? I don't find that realistic.

Of course aeg can have a defence of blaming murray as well as mj, how were they responsible for and could foresee his 17 egregious breaches of the duty of care etc etc as well as the administration of prop in the bedroom. I thought that would be their defence and don't tell me that noone else on here didn't think the same way.

I don't know what others think but to me it was clear that they would blame Michael. It was clear in their opening statement when they talked about personal responsibility. and honestly to me it seems unrealistic to expect them to put on blame on Murray when the claim is based on they are responsible because they hired murray.

I mean think like this Company ABC hires John who drives recklessly and causes an accident hurting Pam. Pam sues company ABC. and you are saying why doesn't Company ABC says "John was drunk as a skunk and guilty as hell but we could not see he would drink and drive". I don't see that as realistic defense because that admittance could backfire. I would think either "accident was Pam's fault" or "john was an angel so we don't know how this happened" as a lot more likely defense scenario.

You seem to be arguing that aeg are facing 'any fault attributable to murray is attributable to aeg' as a done deal. The jacksons have to show that aeg negligently hired/trained and supervised murray first. As i have explained a few times before, aeg's liability being coextensive with murray's liability on the jackson form is because it is the allocation of blame line right at the end of the verdict form. Jurors have already agreed that aeg negligently hired/trained/supervised murray which is why the jackson lawyers put the names together. The jackson form has a line for mj doesn't it? So if jurors want to put some allocation on mj, they can.

yes I added that the jury has to go through all of these steps and think about your last part. assume verdict form has

AEG / Murray
Michael Jackson

and you have been asking why AEG doesn't put the blame on Murray and they put all the blame on Michael. Well isn't it self explanatory? In a verdict form like this any blame put on murray is the blame they put on themselves. Any blame they put on Michael is less responsibility for them. So don't you get why they would go with "blame Michael" route?

Where does the judge's ruling below stand in the explanation you gave ?

I explained this before. Jacksons made that argument after that ruling, they even challenged judge's independent contractor determination. We don't know what will be the judge's final ruling but there is still an argument by Jacksons that claim "AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same. " , as long as that is on the table, as long as there's an possibility that "AEG / Murray" can be listed on the same line, I don't see AEG blaming Murray. It would be quite moronic and like shooting themselves in their foot.

 

[bouee]

Let me ask you this (I was thinking about this on twitter last night)

What if jury thinks AEG has negligently hired Murray but awards minimal to none monetary damages (due to thinking low/no responsibility in Michael's death and/ or not much loss of income).

Who "wins" then, in your opinion?

No one is going to win this, IMO.

Then it depends on why the trial was brought up :

If , for the kids, for example, the reason was that they needed answers about what they witnessed, then the trial has brought up some facts that help understand the whole situation a little bit better. They don't need money. They are going to have to deal with the stuff that has been / will be brought up. I don't know if that's good or bad. If AEG loses, even with low or no damages, then I guess it's rather good for them.

Katherine wanted money, so I would say "too bad".

AEG, and Phillips and other potential people acting this way in the future : they need to be reminded that you can not act the way they did, and it won't work if they don't pay. I'm wondering about the implication of such a decision in other fileds , such as sports and doping / injuries for ex.

Gongaware : I have no opinion, his role is not clear. If i was on the jury, I would say "not guilty" (do you say "not liable ?") based on no clear proof against him. He can thank his early amnesia for that. I hope he will recover after the trial is finished.

Generally speaking Murray is THE responsible one, he should be the one paying the most. That's why I said earlier AEG should not pay more than 50% of what Murray would have been supposed to pay. Anything less than that would be fine with me, even if it's zero damages. If AEG has to pay more than Murray, then that would be really unfair IMO.

Finally, impossible for me to put a price on someone's life, whoever they are. I'm glad I'm not in a position to determine damages.

 

[Mechi]

Let me ask you this (I was thinking about this on twitter last night)

What if jury thinks AEG has negligently hired Murray but awards minimal to none monetary damages (due to thinking low/no responsibility in Michael's death and/ or not much loss of income).

Who "wins" then, in your opinion?

That would be for me the best outcome. Noone can win this trial anyways.
The kids will not care about the money. The rest of the Jacksons deserve sh** alone for putting the kids in the middle of this!

If AEGlive will be found liable then that's enough to know and for everybody to learn.

As I said many times before... if there is money to be paid, they should give it to charities Michael would have supported. That would be true justice!!! Because those charities did endure more a 'loss' than the Jackson family.

 

[ivy]

@bouee

a little bit legal info

you are talking about vicarious liability under respondeat superior. That one says an employer would be directly responsible for the actions of an employee during the course of work. For example if a company hires a delivery guy and the delivery guy hurts a customer during a delivery , the company would be liable.

Judge ruled and dismissed respondeat superior stating Murray is an independent contractor.

However there's another doctrine which is called "peculiar risk".

I'll post the basic definition and jury instructions below and if you read them and if you go back to Jean Seawright testimony in which she called Murray a high risk position, you will see that Jackson lawyers is aiming for "Murray's fault is AEG's fault" based on peculiar risk doctrine.

-------------------

from wikipedia basic definition

The Peculiar Risk Doctrine is a form of vicarious liability where an owner or employer can be held directly liable for damages caused by an independent contractor negligently performing his or her work.

This legal doctrine was created “to ensure that innocent third parties injured by the negligence of an independent contractor hired by a landowner to do inherently dangerous work on the land would not have to depend on the contractor’s solvency in order to receive compensation for the injuries. Under the peculiar risk doctrine, a person who hires an independent contractor to perform work that is inherently dangerous can be held liable for tort damages when the contractor’s negligent performance of the work causes injuries to others.” (Andreini case)

--------------------------------------------

CA jury instructions

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

3708. Peculiar-Risk Doctrine

[Name of plaintiff] claims that even if [name of independent contractor] was not an employee, [name of defendant] is responsible for [name of independent contractor]'s conduct because the work involved a special risk of harm.

A special risk of harm is a recognizable danger that arises out of the nature of the work or the place where it is done and requires specific safety measures appropriate to the danger. A special risk of harm may also arise out of a planned but unsafe method of doing the work. A special risk of harm does not include a risk that is unusual, abnormal, or not related to the normal or expected risks associated with the work.

To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove each of the following:
1. That the work was likely to involve a special risk of harm to others;
2. That [name of defendant] knew or should have known that the work was likely to involve this risk;
3. That [name of independent contractor] failed to use reasonable care to take specific safety measures appropriate to the danger to avoid this risk; and
4. That [name of independent contractor]'s failure was a cause of harm to [name of plaintiff].

[In deciding whether [name of defendant] should have known the risk, you should consider [his/her/its] knowledge and experience in the field of work to be done.]

Sources and Authority

In determining the applicability of the doctrine of peculiar risk, a critical inquiry "is whether the work for which the contractor was hired involves a risk that is 'peculiar to the work to be done,' arising either from the nature or the location of the work and ' "against which a reasonable person would recognize the necessity of taking special recautions." ' " (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 695 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72, 854 P.2d 721], internal citations omitted.)

"Whether the particular work which the independent contractor has been hired to perform is likely to create a peculiar risk of harm to others unless special precautions are taken is ordinarily a question of fact." (Castro v. State of California (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 503, 511 [170 Cal.Rptr. 734], internal citations omitted.)

The doctrine ensures that an injured person will have a source of recovery even if the independent contractor is insolvent. (Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 258 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 955 P.2d 504].)

"The analysis of the applicability of the peculiar risk doctrine to a particular fact situation can be broken down into two elements: (1) whether the work is likely to create a peculiar risk of harm unless special precautions are taken; and (2) whether the employer should have recognized that the work was likely to create such a risk." (Jimenez v. Pacific Western Construction Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 102, 110 [229 Cal.Rptr. 575].)

Restatement Second of Torts, section 413, states: "One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize as likely to create, during its progress, a peculiar unreasonable risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by the absence of such precautions if the employer (a) fails to provide in the contract that the contractor shall take such precautions, or (b) fails to exercise reasonable care to provide in some other manner for the taking of such precautions."

Restatement Second of Torts, section 416, states: "One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize as necessarily likely to create during its progress a peculiar risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care to take such precautions, even though the employer has provided for such precautions in the contract or otherwise."

California courts have adopted the doctrine as expressed in these Restatement sections. (Castro, supra, 114 Cal.App.3d at p. 510.)
Restatement Second of Torts, section 413, has been referred to as "direct" liability, while section 416 has been referred to as "vicarious."

However, the Supreme Court has observed that "this distinction is misleading." The court also observed that these two sections overlap and are somewhat redundant because, under either section, the hiring person is subject to liability for injuries to others resulting from the contractor's negligence. (Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 264-265.)

"A peculiar risk may arise out of a contemplated and unsafe method of work adopted by the independent contractor." (Mackey v. Campbell Construction Co. (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 774, 785-786 [162 Cal.Rptr. 64].)

"The term 'peculiar risk' means neither a risk that is abnormal to the type of work done, nor a risk that is abnormally great; it simply means 'a special, recognizable danger arising out of the work itself.' For that reason, as this court has pointed out, the term 'special risk' is probably a more accurate description than 'peculiar risk,' which is the terminology used in the Restatement." (Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 695, internal citations omitted.)

"Even when work performed by an independent contractor poses a special or peculiar risk of harm, . . . the person who hired the contractor will not be liable for injury to others if the injury results from the contractor's 'collateral' or 'casual' negligence." (Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 696.)

Whether or not a risk is a "peculiar risk" may be decided as a matter of law. (Jimenez, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 111.) In that case, the jury would decide only whether the independent contractor "failed to exercise reasonable care to take the necessary special precautions." (Id. at p. 108.)

The Supreme Court has described "collateral" or "casual" negligence as follows: " 'Casual' or 'collateral' negligence has sometimes been described as negligence in the operative detail of the work, as distinguished from the general plan or method to be followed. Although this distinction can frequently be made, since negligence in the operative details will often not be within the contemplation of the employer when the contract is made, the distinction is not essentially one between operative detail and general method. 'It is rather one of negligence which is unusual or abnormal, or foreign to the normal or contemplated risks of doing the work, as distinguished from negligence which creates only the normal or contemplated risk.' " (Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 510 [156 Cal.Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619], overruled on other grounds in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 702, fn. 4.)

 

[bouee]

@ Ivy : thanks, that's interesting.

That confirms my logic of Murray was visbly negligent/ incompetent & how that makes AEG stuck in their line of defense.

But then there are the last paragraphs :

Even when work performed by an independent contractor poses a special or peculiar risk of harm, . . . the person who hired the contractor will not be liable for injury to others if the injury results from the contractor's 'collateral' or 'casual' negligence." (Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 696.)

Whether or not a risk is a "peculiar risk" may be decided as a matter of law. (Jimenez, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 111.) In that case, the jury would decide only whether the independent contractor "failed to exercise reasonable care to take the necessary special precautions." (Id. at p. 108.)

The Supreme Court has described "collateral" or "casual" negligence as follows: " 'Casual' or 'collateral' negligence has sometimes been described as negligence in the operative detail of the work, as distinguished from the general plan or method to be followed. Although this distinction can frequently be made, since negligence in the operative details will often not be within the contemplation of the employer when the contract is made, the distinction is not essentially one between operative detail and general method. 'It is rather one of negligence which is unusual or abnormal, or foreign to the normal or contemplated risks of doing the work, as distinguished from negligence which creates only the normal or contemplated risk.' " (Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 510 [156 Cal.Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619], overruled on other grounds in Privette, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 702, fn. 4.)

To me, the bolded could apply to Murray, speaking from AEG's point of view.
EDIT : to add that we trusted Murray , but he, along with Michael (or not) fooled us.

------

I think it's reasonable that the law has a provision to protect "employers" from crazy indep contractors / unprofessional indep contractor, because by definition, an indep contractor will likely be in a different line of work than the employer.
if I misunderstood it, then that would be another crazy law.

 

[AliCat]

Here is Wishna saying MJ got off the plane in great shape but became debilitated while staying in Vegas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j_RPwfkUzdA

Also here's an article where Wishna says MJ was too weakened for the Vegas shows (3 x per month):

http://www.eonline.com/news/133691/...-says-jackson-was-too-weak-for-major-comeback

I'm not sure I give Jack Wishna much credence, as to his description of Michael Jackson's physical condition. That's why I spoke about these two powerhouses, Thomas Barrack and Phillip Anschutz, working with Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson wanted a comeback performance, unlike anything and he worked his butt off to achieve that. Randy Phillips stated that originally it was only going to be an 80 minute Show. But, with all the bells and whistles, Michael increased the time to more than twice that. What was Michael thinking, especially if you want to give credence to Jack Wishna? To make his Shows the Greatest Shows on Earth. Michael believed that if he got a deep sleep, he'd wake up refreshed and bang he had the stamina. I just don't know if I accept what Jack Wishna said at the time. Lou Ferrigno, was Michael Jackson's private workout Instructor and he didn't say anything contrary to Michael's condition and this was month's before Michael died. Prince Jackson testified that Michael Jackson wanted more time to develop production, but Michael wasn't showing up for rehearsals, in the last two weeks before he died. That's why I say when Michael returned back to work, he seemed content with the direction of everything involved in the Shows. He was ready to take the Show on the road and go to London!

 

[ivy]

@ Ivy : thanks, that's interesting.

That confirms my logic of Murray was visbly negligent/ incompetent & how that makes AEG stuck in their line of defense.

But then there are the last paragraphs :


To me, the bolded could apply to Murray, speaking from AEG's point of view.

Yes whether it's a regular risk or peculiar risk or whether medical treatment is high risk job etc. can be argued either way. Probably AEG's expert would argue against it. I did not want to get too legal but my point was simply although respondeat superior might be off the table, peculiar risk provides enough basis for Jacksons to argue "Murray's fault is AEG's fault" and therefore result in a defense strategy of not putting any blame on Murray and trying to put the blame on Michael.

 

[ivy]

I think it's reasonable that the law has a provision to protect "employers" from crazy indep contractors / unprofessional indep contractor, because by definition, an indep contractor will likely be in a different line of work than the employer.
if I misunderstood it, then that would be another crazy law.

bouee

a little history (sorry if I bore you)

as you know respondeat superior hold employers responsible for the actions of employees during the course of work but there were nothing that hold them responsible for the actions of the independent contractors. Independent contractors are by definition have been seen as working independently with no or minimal supervision and guidance.

then there was some lawsuits and this peculiar risk doctrine was established. It is all based on the idea that if the independent contractor is doing some inherently dangerous work , the person that hired them could be held responsible if the hiring party doesn't require or provide special precautions.

let me try a (not perfect) example: I have a park that the public comes. I hire landscape people to cut the tree branches. now "branch is cut, it falls down, if it falls down on a person it can hurt them" is a foreseeable risk on my part, it's common sense, it's basic physics, it doesn't require any specific knowledge. So the law say I'll either need to say to the contractor "make sure you secure the area and do not let the public in" or better I need to do make sure that the area is secure and no public is in the park so that no one gets hurt.

It needs to be a special / peculiar and recognizable risk associated with the job.

It doesn't cover any and all actions of the independent contractor such as causal negligence or the unforeseeable risks.

For example the landscape company when driving into the park might drive to close to a car and damage it but careless driving is a regular negligence which means the hiring company would not be responsible. Similarly for example the landscape company might cut the tree branches wrong and cause the whole tree to fall down on a nearby house. If the hiring company doesn't have the knowledge or foresee that a mistake can bring down the trees, they might not be seen as liable.

ps: I saw you asking it : it's guilty / not guilty in a criminal trial and it's liable / not liable in a civil trial.

 

[Tygger]

Bouee, great post regarding U2’s postponement of the 360 tour. MCD Productions did what responsible producers do when faced with the non-performance of their star. There are only two choices: postpone or cancel. In the case of AEG, they refused to do either and this is why they are having this trial now.

And when I read people actually believe MJ could do 260 tour dates in three years, when he's in his 50's and 20 years older than when he did the BAD tour with less than half that number, you realize how much it was true when he said, people think he's a machine. That's some kind of pressure to live under, enough to make anyone emotionally and physically ill, without the assist of a doctor. I don't think anyone would be that quick to point their finger to Murray, when on the surface, this was a successful physician with 4 practices, who helped the poor, etc. etc. So I just don't see the info they had to dump him by that June 20 meeting.

Gerryevans, I stated Michael could do 260 shows and obviously AEG believed it as well as they felt Michael could do 2 shows a week as did this expert. I disagree with Jamba that age is a factor as Jamba’s post gave an example of how the show would be tailored based on Michael’s age and physical limitations. He would continue to be the world’s greatest entertainer but, he would not be giving the exact same physical show he gave during the Bad tour during the TII tour. He did not give the same physical Bad tour show during the Dangerous and History tours either but, most would not notice because he was that incredible.

Many are working through retirement to stay financially stable. Performing was a guaranteed method for Michael to gain that financial stability. He would not be unlike many others who work through retirement; he just had an extraordinary job. What some are suggesting is very similar to what many retirees are experiencing, age discrimination. Age cannot be the only factor in suggesting what one can or cannot do.

Jamba you incorrectly assumed quite a bit about me. I responded to your idea above regarding Michael’s age. As far as Michael being responsible for hiring the doctor, the trial is going to decide who hired him. I will also say this: even if the doctor was the best doctor in the world, AEG should not have allegedly asserted themselves as a third party in the two party doctor-patient relationship. AEG should have ONLY advanced Michael monies to pay whatever doctor he chose.

It was very interesting to see the different reactions to this press conf incident. Ortega testifies that if he had known about mj's behaviour that day he would not have been so prepared to take up the position of tour director on tii as he clearly recognises it as a problem. Phillip's reaction within 48 hrs of this incident, was to increase the number of agreed shows from 31 to 50, giving (and this is phillip's side of the story) mj just 20 mins to decide as to whether he was happy to do it.

Great observation Bonnie Blue.

As much as I dislike the references back to the allegations and Blanket they did effect Michaels reputation, and AEG have used them in the correct context. Everyone on this board would believe Michael should be offered sponsorships, but would he really? And to be honest the way Michael has been described so far makes me ask just how successful would TII have been, yes the ticket sales and demand were there, but Michael still needed to do the shows. If there had been cancellations the press would have been all over it and that would have affected the likelihood any future tours. For the record I absolutely hate talking about Michael in this way.

Im prepared for much worse when AEG start their defence and whilst I won't be happy I understand that AEG have every right to defend themselves, the Jackson side knows that as well.

As far as we know Michael did not want to postpone the O2, if he hadn't pulled it together maybe AEG would have done just that. If Michael hadn't picked up and had remained consistently 'unwell' then I think, at least in part, my opinion would be different.

Last Tear, I disagree. Those past issues existed when Michael broke records by selling out 50 shows and the first dates did get postponed. AEG’s own emails point to hopeful possible sponsorship due to their rehabilitation of Michael’s image. AEG’s defense has been to deflect from the claim of alleged negligent hiring by focusing solely on Michael’s responsibility in his own passing and his public image.

I agree with Ivy that defense teams blame the victim oftentimes. However, I know that because something is customary or law does not mean it is right. It is also NOT the plaintiff(s)’ fault in these cases when defense teams act in this manner and that includes this one. By suggesting this is the Jacksons’ fault that AEG is using this method is indeed blaming the victim(s). I do not see the plaintiffs destroying the reputation of their son/father. I see the plaintiffs’ suing for what they believe is AEG’s involvement in their loss of their son/father.

Last Tear and Ivy, AEG showed no intention of postponing TII except for the production not being ready which was not Michael’s fault. AEG saw signs of concern as early as March 2009 (the press conference, a little more than three months before Michael's passing) and they soldiered on.

putting the show numbers etc aside, realistically we all probably agree that something needed to change for Michael to be able to do multiple tours. So there must be a theory there. Not hiring / firing Murray stops Propofol for good, Michael goes to rehab and gets clean, his sleep problems gets solved, or another doctor is hired who can balance the medicine like in the previous tours.

so something had to happen for Michael to be able to tour until 66. I don't know what but I'm not sure how realistic those expectations are.

Ivy, the coroner’s report stated Michael was in good health so he could very continue and pursue any activity he chose. The only thing that stopped him was the negligent and inappropriate administration of an anesthetic by the doctor. Remember, AEG had their intervention of sorts with Michael so they were not opposed to doing one. The difference was their intervention was to get Michael onstage at rehearsals.

What if jury thinks AEG has negligently hired Murray but awards minimal to none monetary damages (due to thinking low/no responsibility in Michael's death and/ or not much loss of income).

Who "wins" then, in your opinion?

It is a confusing statement in my view to say AEG is responsible but the jurors may not want to penalize them for negligent hiring. Negligence carries weight even on lesser charges. This is why the doctor received the maximum sentence allowed for the lesser charge levied by the State. I do not see a scenario where the plaintiffs would receive a favorable verdict and no damages.

The jury will not look at the plaintiffs the way some fans do in my view. They are not going to remove damages for fear of who will spend it and on what which has no value or place in damage determination. The jury will look at how severely they want to penalize the defendants. The plaintiffs do not figure into that. I have no idea what would be considered minimal damages here.

 

[ivy]

I have no idea what would be considered minimal damages here.

You tell me. Jacksons according to their expert are asking more than $2 billion - when you add something for movies and the future tours etc.

Let's for the sake of argument and simplicity say Jacksons claim the damages $2 billion.

What would you consider to be minimal? Give a percentage, a number. for example less than 10% such as $200 Million?

or other way around what would you consider to be a big and significant damages verdict - again in a scenario the claimed damages are $2 billion. for example at least 50% - 1 Billion?

The only thing that stopped him was the negligent and inappropriate administration of an anesthetic by the doctor.

yes and my question is how do you remove propofol from the mix? fire / not hire Murray? get Michael into rehab? solve his sleep problems? how do you do it? what do you do that he's healed and he doesn't have the same dependency issues in the future that he does 5 tours? and who does it?

Last Tear and Ivy, AEG showed no intention of postponing TII except for the production not being ready which was not Michael’s fault.

I said in the future if Michael did not die and sometime close to the opening - July 6 to july 13- if he did not improve or did not pass the second medical.

 

[Tygger]

You tell me. Jacksons according to their expert are asking more than $2 billion - when you add something for movies and the future tours etc.

Let's for the sake of argument and simplicity say Jacksons claim the damages $2 billion.

What would you consider to be minimal? Give a percentage, a number. for example less than 10% such as $200 Million?

or other way around what would you consider to be a big and significant damages verdict - again in a scenario the claimed damages are $2 billion. for example at least 50% - 1 Billion?

I was not aware damages are $2B now. I thought it was $1.5B or so. Regardless, minimum for me is 33%, maximum is 100%.

yes and my question is how do you remove propofol from the mix? fire / not hire Murray? get Michael into rehab? solve his sleep problems? how do you do it? what do you do that he's healed and he doesn't have the same dependency issues in the future that he does 5 tours? and who does it?

If AEG only advanced monies to the Michael for the doctor, he may have still passed; provided Michael paid the doctor with the advance monies. According to AEG and the lavish spending reports about Michael, we do not know what luxury item Michael would buy with the advance monies. The doctor was not going to remain without payment or the promise of payment. Therefore, Michael would deal with his sleep issues the best he could minus this particular doctor.

I said in the future if Michael did not die and sometime close to the opening - July 6 to july 13- if he did not improve or did not pass the second medical.

AEG showed in the three months before Michael's passing that no illness concerns were going to cause them to postpone. They only postponed because the production was not ready which was not Michael's fault. Based on their past actions, they did not run out of time. I have no reason to beleive they would postpone in July. If he did not pass the physical, AEG would be in danger of not having enough insurance for non-appearance/cancellation. Michael would then be under even more pressure to rehearse and perform.

 

[sfosteredi]

In reference to this legal document item:
"The analysis of the applicability of the peculiar risk doctrine to a particular fact situation can be broken down into two elements: (1) whether the work is likely to create a peculiar risk of harm unless special precautions are taken; and (2) whether the employer should have recognized that the work was likely to create such a risk." (Jimenez v. Pacific Western Construction Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 102, 110 [229 Cal.Rptr. 575].)
I've often thought of this:

If on June 24, 2009 you gave a questionnaire to the 100 people who had seen MJ during the last 2 months of his life (AEG execs, Jackson family, trainer, costume, hair, choreographers, musicians, friends, fans, manager, chef, security, maids, etc.) and asked them what they thought the was the reason for Michael's obvious deterioration (weight loss, inability to concentrate, and chills), I don't think ONE of them (except maybe Klein) would answer that CM was putting Michael in a Propofol induced COMA every night.

I remember when we first heard about the propofol from nurse Cherilyn Lee soon after Michael died. No one know what she was talking about. She referred to it as Dipravan (brand name) but soon the media and all of us were calling it propofol, profopol, popofol, prothothal and everything else. No one could have imagined what was being done in that house every night. Only CM and MJ knew and that's the way MJ wanted it, IMO.

 

[jamba]

I think what someone says or writes at 29 or 30 would not necessarily be what they thought at 50. He did not need to retire or should have retired, 50 is way too young. He looked great in the movie although he was being drugged by Murray & Klein. He apparently was working on an album & seemed to want to do alot more, how much touring or performing, idk.

In general, that is true. But if someone had been performing at MJ's level since age 5, IMO that person would be essentially very tired at age 50 of that same performing, which is why MJ wanted to go into other areas that were not so physcally demanding, such as producing and directing movies. It's easy for us to say, or for Erk to say, that MJ should have performed 448 shows after age 50 up to age 66, but none of us started performing at age 5. All of us HAD a childhood.

I think we need to listen to what MJ said and not brush it aside with generalizations. Just my 2 cents on this. However, I am getting tired of this as it seems that what MJ said--and he said more than once--is getting ignored. So I am going to 'retire' from this debate. Everyone can make up their own minds and they will and at a certain point, it seems we are just beating a dead horse. I would like to add to this discussion but it seems "no one understands me."

You say "he looked great in the movie" but many disagree--it seems many issues are getting so clouded. Everything is disputed and that makes it hard to discuss b/c there is no basis of agreement.

 

[ultravioletrae]

Something to keep in mind about the number of shows:

448 shows after age 50 up to age 66 is about 28 shows per year.

Cirque du Soleil performers play 10 shows per week, with 2 weeks vacation and 10 sick days - 490 shows per year.

Broadway performers play 8 shows per week, with vacation and 8 sick days - 400 shows per year.

Broadway performers with exceedingly demanding roles play 6 shows per week, with vacation and sick days - 294 shows per year.

Paul McCartney, age 71, has played 21 shows in the last three months, mostly one nighters. http://www.paulmccartney.com/live/tour-archives/27468-out-there He has 9 more shows scheduled through November for a total of 30 shows in 30 weeks.

The Rolling Stones, all over age 66 and pushing 70, played 29 concerts this year, mostly one-nighters. http://www.rollingstones.com/tickets/

 

[jrsfan]

In general, that is true. But if someone had been performing at MJ's level since age 5, IMO that person would be essentially very tired at age 50 of that same performing, which is why MJ wanted to go into other areas that were not so physcally demanding, such as producing and directing movies. It's easy for us to say, or for Erk to say, that MJ should have performed 448 shows after age 50 up to age 66, but none of us started performing at age 5. All of us HAD a childhood.

I think we need to listen to what MJ said and not brush it aside with generalizations. Just my 2 cents on this. However, I am getting tired of this as it seems that what MJ said--and he said more than once--is getting ignored. So I am going to 'retire' from this debate. Everyone can make up their own minds and they will and at a certain point, it seems we are just beating a dead horse. I would like to add to this discussion but it seems "no one understands me."

You say "he looked great in the movie" but many disagree--it seems many issues are getting so clouded. Everything is disputed and that makes it hard to discuss b/c there is no basis of agreement.

He was able to physically do many things- when I look at pics, his leaps were very high - so you just cannot do that out of the blue so Michael had to have been keeping very active. He may not have wanted to perform but producing & directing movies is not retiring & I think 50 is too young- I bet he had alot of great ideas & years ahead. He may have made alot more money at movie making than touring.

 

[serendipity]

Please, there is no way MJ would have done or agreed to do 260 shows and 5 more tours. Any fan who knew MJ even a little bit would know that. We know they were planning on taking TII around the world, but definitely not 260 shows. I remember it was said (was it the follower fans he spoke to?) that he was pissed with the additional shows, because he wanted to go around the world and not stay in London for that long. He was not planning that many shows!!!

I could see him doing 20-30 more shows in some of the biggest cities, but 260? No way!

All these other artists being mentioned did not start performing at 5 and certainly don't have MJ's severe insomnia (that apparently he refused to treat). So there's no comparison.

He said it loud and clear that this was his last tour. I don't see him doing any major tours after that. He has started already paying off his ATV loan anyway.

If AEG only advanced monies to the Michael for the doctor, he may have still passed; provided Michael paid the doctor with the advance monies. According to AEG and the lavish spending reports about Michael, we do not know what luxury item Michael would buy with the advance monies.
.

We do know of one item he bought with the advance monies he was given - a $600 000 motor home Mother requested.

 

[Tygger]

We know they were planning on taking TII around the world, but definitely not 260 shows.

AEG disagrees with you. Their estimate of two shows per week matches the expert. AEG and the expert differ in regards to the amount of time the tour would last and the monies amount. Notice how quick the cross was of the economist?

We do know of one item he bought with the advance monies he was given - a $600 000 motor home Mother requested.

According to Sullivan, Michael used his Thriller25 royalties for the motor home, not his AEG advance.

 

[AliCat]

Also on Wednesday, the jury heard videotaped testimony from Paris Jackson, the King of Pop’s troubled 15-year-old daughter.
Paris, whose testimony was recorded during a deposition in March, said her father still had hits up his sleeve, but needed to take a break from touring.
A lawyer for AEG had asked her about claims her famous dad planned to “retire” from the music business.
“He still had a lot of music that he was still working on, but he kind of needed to relax,” Paris said as the jury watched the footage on a huge courtroom video screen.
“Did he tell you he wasn’t going to tour anymore after O2,” AEG lawyer Marvin Putnam asked, referring to the 50 shows that were booked at the famous London arena but ultimately cancelled following Michael’s overdose death on June 25, 2009.
“Yes,” Paris replied.

“Did (your dad) explain to you how long the (‘This Is It”) tour was going to last,” Putnam asked Paris in the second excerpt shown Wednesday.
“I assume a long time since it was a world tour,” she said. “Those usually last a long time ... He told us that we were going around the world on tour.”


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...jackson-trial-article-1.1401750#ixzz2ZSunsIx1

When Michael Jackson is giving his pep talk, in the movie, "This Is It," he says that they have four year's to get it right. This reference did make me think that the tour would go on the road for 4 year's.

So there was talk that Michael Jackson would continue to tour, as it was the quickest way to get his debt paid off. Phillip Anschutz does own properties around the globe that Michael Jackson would have performed at. There was a demand from fan's for Michael to come their way. About 93% of the tickets sold for Michael Jackson's Shows at the 02 Arena were from the UK. The demand was there for Michael to tour around the world at Anschutz's properties for entertainment. Then Michael would have retired from performing and this would have been it. 2013 would have been the final year, for Michael's final performances, these shows, his final curtain call!

 

[passy001]

According to Sullivan, Michael used his Thriller25 royalties for the motor home, not his AEG advance.

Sullivan was speculating.

According to press reports MJ was heavily indebted and was on the verge of losing his assets.

Neverland was going into foreclosure. Same with Havendurst home. From these facts alone it's hard to see why MJ would use his royalties to pay a useless property as opposed to paying down his debts.

 

[Tygger]

From these facts alone it's hard to see why MJ would use his royalties to pay a useless property as opposed to paying down his debts.

Maybe Michael was responsible and did not intermingle the AEG advance that was for business expenses with his royalties that he could spend at his personal discretion.

I believe the motor home was paid for with his Thriller25 royalties and not AEG advance monies.

Question please: this tweet from McCartney was confusing. He has access to same day court transcripts?

Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP 17 Jul
According to the transcript, Palazuelos threatened the attorneys with sanctions, but didn't impose any.
Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP 17 Jul
Judge Yvette Palazuelos met with Panish and Putnam to address them yelling at each other in the courthouse hallway on Tuesday afternoon.
Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP 17 Jul
Going to share a couple details from the judge's session this morning with attorneys Brian Panish and Marvin Putnam, per court transcript.

 

[Bubs]

I don't understand the purpose of calling Dr. Formuzis and Emery Brown as they didn't bring anything new or groundbreaking on the table?
There was expert already tesifying how much money MJ was going to make, and then there was a sleep specialists, so what was the purpose of these two?

Katherine is going to be the last of plaintiffs witnesses so no other Jackson's will be called. Shoot, I was so looking forward seeing them being ripped apart on stand and their lies exposed.

I find it interesting that they didn't call Tohme! He was there when things started moving and negotiations took place + he was in UK during the announcement. Now that he wasn't called, I got even more suspicious of his connection with Jermaine.

Osbourne wasn't called after all. Why the headlines and then they didn't call her after all?
They listed all these as witnesses, but called very few from the list.

Katherine Jackson / Prince Jackson / Paris Jackson / Paul Gongaware / Randy Phillips / Jeffrey Adams / Dr. David Adams / Daniel Anderson/ Phillip Anschutz / Dr. Frederic Askin(removed) / Raymone Bain / Ramone Baines(removed - could be a typo) / Richard Barnet (removed) / Tom Barrack / Martin Blount/ Michael Bearden/ Dan Beckerman / David Berman / John Branca / Dr. Emery Neal Brown / Ellen Brunn / Michael Bush / Kai Chase / Patrick Cousins / Dr. Charles Czeisler / Jenna Daddario EMT / Kelly DiStefano / Melissa Elias / Arthur Erk/ Joyce Essex / Alimorad Farschian/ Karen Faye / Lou Ferrigno / Dr. Stuart Finkelstein / Peter Formuzis / Maritza Glassman / Paramedic Mark Goodwin / Dr. Stephen Gordon / Hosny Habashy / Dennis Hawk / Reynold Henry EMT / Cathy Hilton / Julie Hollander / Alejandra Jackson / Jackie Jackson/ Janet Jackson/ Jermaine Jackson / Marlon Jackson / Rebbie Jackson / Randy Jackson / Taj Jackson / Tarryl Jackson/ TJ Jackson / Tito Jackson / Trent Jackson / Quincy Jones / Kathy Jorrie / Michael Kane / Arnold Klein/ Michael Laperruque / Cherilyn Lee / Spike Lee / Tim Leiweke / Hendrikus Lemmens (removed) / Carlos Letelier DDS / Arlyne Lewiston / Detective Orlando Martinez / Dr. Gordon Matheson/ Cindy Medina / John Meglen / Tom Mesereau / Dr. Allan Metzger / Tom Miserendo / Amy Morrison / Roselyn Muhammad / Dr. Conrad Murray / Barry Nadell/ Prince Rogers Nelson / Kenny Ortega / Sharon Osbourne/ Ray Parker Jr / Amy Pascal/ Travis Payne / Lisa Marie Presley / Howard Rile / Dr. Christopher Rogers / Diana Ross / Debbie Rowe / Amir Dan Rubin/ Alif Sankey / Dr. Lakshamanan Sathyavagiswaran/ Madeline Schilder / Dr. Sidney Schnoll / Jean Seawright / Paramedic Richard Seneff / Dr. Myer Shimelman / Barry Siegel / Dr. David Slavit / Janice Smith/ Scott Smith/ Dr. Alon Steinberg / Dr. Barry Swerdlow / Mark Tadrisi DDS / Evvy Tavasci / Tohme Tohme / Shawn Trell / Anthony Urquidez / Carl Virgil / Daniel Wallace / Frederick Webking / Bill Whitfield / Debra Willis / Dr. Daniel Wohgelernter / Timm Woolley


Ivy, I have a question. When defendad or plaintiffs list they witnesses, do they pay to them even if they are not called or only when they take a stand? I was wondering as plaintiffs list above have many Dr's in it and they would have to prepare for the case, so do they get paid regardless if they are called or not?

 

[MIST]

Let me ask you this (I was thinking about this on twitter last night)

What if jury thinks AEG has negligently hired Murray but awards minimal to none monetary damages (due to thinking low/no responsibility in Michael's death and/ or not much loss of income).

Who "wins" then, in your opinion?

I´ve been thinking about a book QBVII by Leon Uris.

It´s a trial in that book about defamation, people said the nice doctor had done awfult things in concentration camps
The doctor had my symphati from the beginning but when the trial went on it showed it wasn´t lies he had really done the things he was accused for my symphati totally changed.

The doctor won the case after all and was awarded 1 penny or something like that, but he lost family and friends.

Let´s see what happens here when Michael´s mother and siblings are going to testify
Some ugly things can be revealed about how they have used Michael.
They can win the case about money but at the same time lose

 

[Bubs]

Let me ask you this (I was thinking about this on twitter last night)

What if jury thinks AEG has negligently hired Murray but awards minimal to none monetary damages (due to thinking low/no responsibility in Michael's death and/ or not much loss of income).

Who "wins" then, in your opinion?

AEG's insurance company.

 

[Mechi]

Me is not surprised Thome wasn't called. Whichever side is supposed to be served by whatever Thome would say, the oponent would always come with his 'Dr.' and pretending to be embessador of a certain country and his credibility would disappear into thin air.

 

[LastTear]

@bubs, I think we can assume that if they haven't called all those witnesses then those witnesses could not add much to the case. I wonder if AEG will call the rest of the Jacksons to the stand.

Ivy, I have a question. When defendad or plaintiffs list they witnesses, do they pay to them even if they are not called or only when they take a stand? I was wondering as plaintiffs list above have many Dr's in it and they would have to prepare for the case, so do they get paid regardless if they are called or not?

Good question. Wait for Ivy but I'm guessing they get paid for all their research - but I'm wondering if they get paid extra to testify.

 

[Mechi]

Usually you negotiate a certain fee for preparation and/or an expertise and then you're getting payed for being in court... like just being there to be available cuz you'll might be called and then there is an even higher fee if you're called for the time you're in the stand.
Well that is when someone wants me in the stand as an expert at least!